Skip to main content

tv   Charlie Rose  PBS  March 30, 2011 1:00am-2:00am EDT

1:00 am
welcome to the program. i am al hunt of bloomberg news sitting in for charlie rose who is on assignment in indonesia, tonight we look at the situation in libya, the president's evening address on monday, and what u.s., nato and allied roles will be, we talked to senators john mccain and jack reed. >> there are times where the greatest nation in the world and the strong eh nation in the world has to act alone, that is not the preference, and the preference is to build coalitions as we have most of the times in the past. i think that president obama may be unintentionally or intentionally conveying the impression that we can never act alone. i don't think that is appropriate, given possible scenarios. >> as we have seen, this trance formative effect in egypt and
1:01 am
tunisia, i can't we want to encourage that but we want to recognize it is best done through a coalition, it is best done by using the particularly unique capabilities of the united states, but not committing our forces to long-term engagements. >> and david ignatius of the washington post, david ignatius, doyle mcmanus and julianna goldman. >> it is exhilarating seeing for people calling for change and sweeping away governments and yet where it is going, what the risks are for the united states, nobody knows, and i think that is what is lying this the background for republicans, for democrats and for this president. >> we close with an interview charlie taped recently with howard schultz, the ceo ofs.>> . e has a new book out called onward. >> growth and success at such a high level covered up our mistakes and growth became a strategy as opposed to a tactic and we got a little carried away with ourselves.
1:02 am
>> and although i wasn't the ceo i was as culpable as anyones else, because i was the chairman an honestly i came back because of love of the company, my responsibility and the last two years have been perhaps the most rewarding of the last 30. >> what is next for libya and howard schultz on the future of starbucks when we continue. >> funding for charlie rose was provided by the following. >> >> every story needs a hero we can all root for, who beats the odds and comes out on top, but this isn't just a hollywood storyline, it is happening every day all across america, every time a storefront opens, or the midnight oil is is burn and when someone chase as dream, not just a dollar, they are small business owners, so if you want to root for a real hero, small busi,or smal business, shop small. >> additional funding provided by these funders.
1:03 am
>> and by bloomberg a provider of multimedia news an information services worldwide. >> captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. >> good evening, i am al hunt of bloomberg news, filling in for charlie whose who is on assignment in jakarta, indonesia. >> president obama addressed the nation monday evening to defend the libya, the assault on libya. >> libya at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. we had a unique ability to stop that violence, an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of arab countries and a plea for help from the libyan people themselves.
1:04 am
we also have the ability to stop qaddafi's forces in their tracks without putting american troops on the ground. >> to brush aside america's responsibility as a leader and more profoundly our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. the united states of america is different. and as president, i refuse to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action. >> he also said that america should take a multilateral approach when it is not directly threatened but its interests and values are. >> we should not be afraid to act but the burden of action should not be america's alone. >> as we have in libya, our task
1:05 am
is instead to mobilize the international community for collective action, because contrary to the claims of some, american leadership is not simply a matter of going it alone and bearing all of the burden ourselves. >> real leadership creates the conditions in coalitions for others to step up as well, to work with allies and partners so that they bear their share of the burden and pay their share of the costs. and to see that the principles of justice and human dignity are upheld by all. >> earlier today a group of allied leaders met in london and agreed qaddafi mus must be remod by the nato, for the nato led operation to end. >> secretary hillary clinton poke to the nation. >> we agree with the arab league qaddafi has lost the legitimacy to lead. we agree with the african union on the need for a democratic transition process, and we support u.n. special enjoy's
1:06 am
planned travel to libya following this conference to assess conditions and report to the international community. >> joining me now from the russell rose senator is john mccain a republican from arizona and a ranking member on the armed services committee i am pleased to have him back on this program. >> thank you, al. >> you were critical of the obama policy on libya prior to his monday night speech. were you assuaged by his address to the national defense institute? >> well, actually, i favored the intervention that it was belated and obviously i have stated i think we could have, by instituting a no-fly zone three weeks before that it would have been over, but i certainly agreed with the president that this intervention was necessary, that benghazi was going to suffer a horrific consequence of qaddafi innovation and so invasion so i believed that the
1:07 am
right action was taken. i obviously did not agree with the assertion that we can't take qaddafi out by force, but i think the president made the right decision. i think he made a strong case for that intervention, and i said so. >> he said last might that qaddafi should go, but as you just pointed out, that is not part of the u.s. military policy there. so if he thinks qaddafi should go, what are our options and how should we make that more likely? >> i this toy prevail on the ground, there is a chance, al and i can't predict the odds, but, but there is a chance and i think fairly good one that when he sees, when the people around him see what is the inevitable that he would either leave or he would be captured or killed, and i am not saying that we ought to go out and try to kill him, but -- and the other aspect of it, i
1:08 am
think, is that we have to continue, quote, all necessary means which in reality translated to what they are doing on the ground is protecting the anti-qaddafi rebels as they move towards tripoli. >> should we arm, should we provide arms assistance to the rebels? >> well, i think so. i think the important thing right now is to make sure that we take out qaddafi's armor and keep his air force, what little there is left of it, on the ground. these rebels have shown us time and time again they are not organized, they are not well-trained, and they are not well equipped, so the air asset is vital. do we need to give them weapons and get the training? i think as susan rice said, i think this morning, obviously that should be an option that we should
1:09 am
consider and by the way the british and the french are doing things to help out as well. i am told secondhand. >> well, let me pick up on that, because some of your colleagues, not you but some of your colleagues have suggested the mere fact that we are relying on a coalition to push u.n. 1973, push the envelope on that, is going to cause problems, that there will be sustained effort that is required over weeks or months will be much more difficult. >> fair point? >> i think wherever we can find coalitions and build them, we should take advantage of that. there is no doubt that the british and french are especially way out front on us on this, the french recognized the government, the french were the first to fly the sorties and so there is no doubt about that. but to have the arab league endorse a no-fly zone i think was an important step. i think it was probably the catalyst in the decision-making
1:10 am
process by the president and, of course, being able to get the security council resolution, but on the other hand, al, i don't think that we should say that before we take any military action we have to have the securitsecurity council endorset is a nice thing to have but there are situations where frankly we are not going to get it and our vital national interests are at stake and let me point out again we said never again after rwanda and i believe the president ma made the case that we had to intervene to prevent another massacre. is that in our vital national security interests, as the question was given to secretary gates? well, obviously it is a matter of definition, but it is clearly in our interests to make sure, if we can, and i have to emphasize if we can, prevent a massacre. >> do you think that we should have gone in union la unilaterae
1:11 am
couldn't have assembled the coalition quick enough. >> i think we should have invoked a no-fly zone and in doing so when the momen momentus on the side of the rebels this thing would be over. that is what i think we should have done. now, when you say go in, i think declaration of a no-fly zone clearly, as soon as the first french aircraft flew, all of the libyans stopped flying because libyan pilots don't want to die. >> senator, you have been reasonably optimistic about the prospects there. if that proves the case and qaddafi is overthrown, do you have any sense of what a new regime would look like about who we can rely on or who would -- who can govern this country that has been run by this really madman dictator for 42 years? >> first of all, no. i don't know them well, and nobody does. we didn't know who was going to come after hitler, but we do know that the head of the
1:12 am
government is former justice minister, that there are individuals from all over libya and by the way, al, i am a little bit aggravated by this hype that somehow al qaeda is going to take over this organization. there is no evidence. i just spoke to admiral on the phone, our nato commander. and he said, he says he has seen some efforts and indications but there is no evidence that they are going to take over and hijack. and in addition to that, you know, you have got to go a long way to be worse than qaddafi, i believe that if it is handled right qaddafi either leaves or collapses or is killed or is in an international court, however this thing ends up with him gone and not a stalemate, and i think we could help the libyan people make a transition to democracy, and by the way they have a lot of money and one of the things i hope they would do with that money is reimburse us the way that the saudis and the kuwaitis reimbursed us after desert
1:13 am
storm. >> what effect do you see that having on other countries in the region? let's talk about places like bahrain and yemen. >> i think one of the lessons would be is that before a dictator decides thomas kerr his citizens he better think twice, and i think the opposite lesson would have been learned if academy at this had gotten away with it. each one of these countries is different. it was a fairly progressive government in bahrain, and it is obvious that the saudis at least feel that it is a proxy war between the saudis and the iranians. i think we could work on the government in bahrain to show more liberalization, in yemen, my friend, if anybody can figure out how w we control what happes in yemen, i would like to meet that person. as you know, it is a tribal society. it is -- it has been cobbled together and, you know, the he jinxes took it one time and decided that they didn't want
1:14 am
it, it is going to be very, very difficult and tunisia and egypt i see every prospect for the likelihood of a democratic transition. so to somehow, you know, lump the middle east, the arab world all in one category i think is not a good and informed reading of the actual situation. >> one place that has been hostile and has shown a willingness to kill its own people is syria, which, what should the u.s. policy be toward syria today. >> on this issue of intervention, also, we have very strong, in my view, motivation to stop catastrophes and massacres where they might take place, but it also has to be doable, and to stop qaddafi in a narrow strip of land next to the mediterranean with air power is something that i believe is very doable. i am not saying we should never
1:15 am
intervene in syria. i am just saying we better figure out a way to do it. he is not mass kerg people the way his father did, obviously, and so i think we ought to wait on event and not say that we are going to intervene, because then obviously we send the wrong signal and then if we don't, then the united states has backed down. at this time, moment in time, i certainly wouldn't contemplate another kind of operation in syria, such as we have seen in libya. >> but by the way, i am -- you know, i hate to tell you when i am surprised, because i think i know a lot, but i am surprised at the depth and strength of this movement in syria. >> that actually i think sounds a little bit about what, like what started to emerge assort of a mini obama doctrine from that monday night speech where we intervened, u.s. has vital interests and american citizens are threatened, other places
1:16 am
where we intervene if we have a coalition, and we have a reasonable prospect for success. >> the only thing i think there is too much emphasis on the coalition, when we went to panama, we didn't have a coalition. >> when we went to grenada we didn't have a coalition, there are times where the greatest nation in the world and the strongest nation in the world has to act alone. that is the preference, and the preference is to build coalitions as we have most of the times in the past. i think that president obama may be unintentionally or intentionally conveying the impression that we can never act alone. i don't think that is appropriate, given possible scenarios. i remember a certain candidate in 2008 pointing out that the democratic nominee was a neofight on foreign policy as indeed he was, based on the last couple of months do you think that this administration has
1:17 am
learned lessons about the conduct of foreign policy? >> i do, and i have always believed that president obama is a quick study. i do believe we have, again, a philosophical difference in that the president believes, in my view, or his indications are we are kind of all the same, in other words, that he deemphasizer of american exceptionalism, i happen to be a strong believe never american exceptionalism, not to the exclusion of allies and friends, but at least we still will maintain a leadership role throughout the 21st century. >> okay. jock mccain, it is always good to visit with you, thanks for visiting with us. >> #02: thanks for having me on. >> hanks for having me on. >> joining me now from the russell rotunda is senator jack reed of rhode island, a ranking senior democratic member of the
1:18 am
armed services committee. i am pleased to have him back on this program. senator, thank you. >> thank you, al. >> let me start off by asking if the president provided a calculator at this of policy and purpose with his address monday night. >> i think he did. i think what he did is indicate clearly how he built the very adroitly a diplomatic coalition, involved in the arab league, in the united nations and he limited our involvement, because the nature of the threat, humanitarian crisis required action, but it certainly didn't require a full-scale and exclusive involvement of the united states. >> but i think it is very successful, but i think he was very successful in defining the challenge which is to prevent a humanitarian crisis of the first order, and also indicating that the pressure being applied to qaddafi will hopefully eventually lead to his departure. i think he set out the terms very well. >> senator, is success in libya
1:19 am
defined, however, by whether qaddafi goes or not? >> well, i think i increasingly it is defined by his departure. he is illegitimate in the eyes of his own people. one of the most important aspects of this whole diplomatic process was the condemnation by the arab league, it is the first time i can recall they ever signaled out a sitting arab leader to call him a criminal, asking for a no-fly zone. that was an extraordinary moment, and so his status is such that i think ultimately he has to leave, that means that the family has to leave also. and so we have to, secretary of state clinton had done a superb job of building that diplomatic coalition to provide transition, to provide support to emerging hopefully democratic government in libya. >> well, in part, that of course, in large part that is going to depend on what takes place on the ground there. what is your sense of where the
1:20 am
military situation is in libya right now? >> well, the most decisive military factor today is the air power that the nato forces, typically british and french air forces are providing. it will effectively degrade any libyan academy by forces, and it will give the rebels the opportunity to organize themselves, retake more territory, put increasing pressure on qaddafi. at some point, if qaddafi, particularly if he leaves in a sudden departure, the nato forces could consider some type of stabilization force on the ground, not including american forces, and that might be the final transition state. we have done things like that in the past. i can recall visiting east moore where there was international forces to provide stability and it was very effective. >> but that should only be done if qaddafi leaves? >> well, not so much physically
1:21 am
leaving, but i sense he is becoming increasingly more marginal. i think you are going to start seeing fits pictures appear in his own ruling circle .. where people sense his days are numbered, and they are looking for the best deal. they might put pressure on him. he might become so isolated, so marginalized in a small section of the country that effectively he is no longer a factor in libyan politics and at that point, particularly if his armed forces which are generally mercenaries desert him then i think you have a situation where nato forces or some other forces in the stable laition mode can come in. >> if he does go, that is obviously welcome news for the united states. do you have any sense of what a new libyan regime would look like? this guy has ruled the place with, you know, dictatorial authority for 42 years and very few other institutions or anything else to build on. >> well, you are exactly right. he has systematically undercut
1:22 am
any type of civic organization, any type of political organization. the only institution that appeared of think coherence is the state oil company but that is not the kind of institution you build a democratic society upon. so i think this would be a real challenge, but i think it is a challenge that is within the capacity of the international community. >> what do you think our policy should be if he should decide to leave? should we just let him go somewhere, to some other african nation or should our policy be to treat him like mill less vick and treat him like a war criminal? >> the policy should be to treat him as the war criminal, he has been branded even by his .. fellow muslim leaders in the arab league. there is a possibility that he could go, though, to a country that would give him safe haven and prevent his ex-addiction, but, extradition but i don't think we should at this juncture
1:23 am
forego any possibility of bringing him before the ger smacial tribut man in the hague .. that, in fact is a strong incentive for him to perhaps seek some type of exile where he feels he might be protected by the local government. but we should not surrender the high frowned which is that this -- his activities have been criminal in nature and have to be accounted for before the world justice. >> with this situation and the speech monday night, is there an emerging obama doctrine on intervention? >> well, i think it might not be a doctrine, i think it represents very pragmatic view of our interests tied to support of our ideals, the notion that we can't allow these humanitarian disasters to take place, if we have the capacity to effectively intervene. that we want to encourage grass roots democratic expression and
1:24 am
growth as we have seen this transformative effect at least in egypt and tunisia we want to encourage that. we want to recognize it is best done through a coalition, it is best done by using the particularly unique capabilities of the united states, but not committing our forces to long-term engagements. so i think those are the -- some of the aspects of what is emerging as the president's approach to foreign policy. i think it makes quite a bit of sense, and i think it draws on our strengths while also drawing on the strengths of our allies. >> you mention other countries in the region. what is your read now on the situation in bahrain and yemen? >> well, there, i think we have been able to have effective conversations with, in bahrain, the king and in yemen with the president, made the case they cannot conduct violence attacks against their own people, that they have to begin to plan for a transition to a more democratic
1:25 am
rule, and that that is a slow rose but it is a different situation from libya, where qaddafi basically was attacking his own people, and, in fact, prior to his attack or proposed attack in benghazi threatened to go door to door to hunt down people and destroy them. i think we have been able to on a diplomatic level to start the process of transition, particularly in bahrain and also to encourage in yemen that president begin to consider his options and a transition to a more legitimate and a more popularly accepted government. >> and how about syria, which we have had rather unfriendly regs relations? >> syria is another example of this incredible transformation and i think if you asked me six months ago that the widespread political movements from the
1:26 am
streets, from the grass roots, i wouldn't have been as positive in my response. but what we see in syria is a phenomenon throughout the middle east, people are beginning to assert themselves, they are not satisfied with the corruption, they are not satisfied with the poor economic opportunities. they see a ruling elite that is preventing them from a better life, that is breaking through now it might be through new technology and social networking but that is taking hold, and it is remarkable that in syria, we are seeing, one, that type of popular movement, and two, i think the current regime feels constrained because of the popular international opinion in support for these groups. they are not -- you know, they have taken some violent steps but they are very, very short of some of the measures they have used in the past, so it is remarkable there. that might be more remarkable and from a geo political standpoint, it sends, i think, a
1:27 am
very, very strong signals to iran of their sense of regional growing influence might be waning if there is a change in government in syria. >> senator jack reed, thank you so much for being with us. >> thank you. >> we continue looking at the white house handling of libya and the ongoing events in the middle east. joining me now are david ignatius, a columnist for the washington post, doyle mcmanus, a washington columnist for the los angeles times and julianna goldman, chief white house correspondent for bloomberg news. >> david, you had written that obama's libyan policy prior to last night was more than a little confusing, he brought a note of realism? >> well, i thought he attempted to explain what he is doing. it was a progress report on military operation that he and
1:28 am
the white house had not explained clearly or fully. he tried to tell the country that the major part of u.s. military involvement was over, that in the first week u.s. warplanes and other assets have been deployed, and he basically said, we did our job, that we stopped qaddafi's forces just as they were about to take benghazi, the second largest city in libya in the east and begin to push them back. i thought the interesting thing about this was that he was trying to clarify what i think most people had found confusing policy. but he was offering something more fundamental which was an explanation of how he sees the issue of u.s. military intervention after our wars in iraq and afghanistan. what is it we are going to do going forward? >> is there an obama doctrine? >> he resists saying that. i think, you know, this is a man who doesn't like to be caught in
1:29 am
positions. he is an ad hoc pragmatic guy and likes to give himself wiggle room, but whittling it down what he is saying where there are overwhelming threats to u.s. national interests, national security, we will act unilaterally, much as george w. bush did, but where the threats are more peripheral, and you would have to say that's the case with libya, we will use military force only when we are acting as part of an international coalition. in this case we have a u.n. resolution that mandates our use of force but it was a fascinating exposition of the basics of how he looks at national security. >> and that distinguishes libya from bahrain or other place ms. the middle east where it could it would not be that kind of regional or international -- >> the white house has made clear it doesn't want libya to be seen as a precedent that every time you have rebels or demonstrators who are facing
1:30 am
overwhelming force the, s is going, u.s. is going to join an international coalition to rescue them, and i think the president clearly does want to distinguish between places like the gulf, where we have an overwhelming security interest in saudi arabia not blowing up, the oil market not going crazy, or yemen, where we have an overwhelming interest in al qaeda not getting out of control in the post president sala of yemen, in those places and libya and you can say that is a hypocritical doctrine and say how do we go about making those distinctions? but i think there is a kernel of realism, that's the word we put on it, a kernel of realism in what obama is putting forth. >> singly, doyle you had written obama is tying himself in knots. has he untied himself with that speech monday night at the national defense institute? >> i think he untied some of the
1:31 am
knots. >> i mean the problem the president faced was that he had a policy that on the on one hand declared a big goal which is qaddafi must goal on the other hand the instrument he is using of military power is very limited, all of the talk is about limits and it is limited to the aims of the u.n. security councilman date which is protecting civilians so there is a his match there. now, i think the president lined those up a little bit better and if you talk to other people in the administration, it is very clear they are pushing the envelope of the u.n. mandate as far as they can to serve the larger goal of getting academy at this out. but i don't think the president untied all of the knots. if you think about the questions i think most americans had about this policy, okay, one was why are we there? the president spent a lot of time on that and i think he did a pretty good job of explaining that, but another was how long do we stay? i don't think we know. what happens if we do this for some number of weeks or months
1:32 am
but qaddafi is still there in a bunker and hung hunkers down and doesn't want to leave? are we permanently in a civil war or a semipermanent no-fly zone? we really don't know yet, so that is part of the reason for not answering those questions is they are all hypotheticals you can't answer them now. the administration hopefully obviously they won't get to this point but this is not going to still the debates and concern the americans have. >> well the first test of what happens is whether academy at this goes or not, and the president seen monday night to say both qaddafi should go and it is not the military policy of this coalition to topple qaddafi. >> yeah but he got those two closer together so where we are -- legally you are supposed to see a gap between those two, but i think if you stand back and look at them they are right next to each other,. >> what happened i is what is te white house telling you today about that closeness? >> well, this is the second challenge for the president because on the other hand u.s. policy is that academy at this needs to leave, but on the other
1:33 am
hand, u.n. security council resolution 1973 is to protect the civilians of libya and not push academy at this out and one of the things the president was able to bring closer together last night was really explaining that if they tried to push qaddafi out militarily that that would splinter coalition, that they would lose the support of the arab states, which is so critical right now and that, in turn, would force the u.s. to take on a greater role, both militarily and in terms of the costs they would have to -- >> so you would agree that privately or whenever you -- that if qaddafi is still there six months or a year from now that is going to be bad news for them? >> well it is going to be bad news and that is what leaves the mission partially undefined because as long as qaddafi is in power, the people of libya will need protection and there is no end game. >> julianna, you have covered this president now for over two years. >> it seems there is a pattern. something happens, some big event there is a crisis, they are very slow to start, they
1:34 am
just don't quite get their bearings right and then suddenly they turn to secretariat the big guy to pull them out and he gives some eloquent speech and things seem to get better. is that always the case and why? >> well, it is the pattern, as you are saying. you have got reverend wright, healthcare, the bp oil spill, it is almost like the white house, they don't want to acknowledge or buy into the cri criticism, t there is only so much bandwidth out there and it becomes a distraction and then as you said they have to pull in secretariat and the president is at his best when he has to come from behind, and that is essentially what they tried to do last height. now the white house says 101 of the reasons they wanted to wit wait and why they couldn't have pinch this speech ten days ago because the president needed to be able to offer clarity, and he was talking ten days ago about days, not weeks and finally last night he was able to say nato is assuming full control of the military operation as of wednesday. >> what do your sources tell you about qaddafi's prospects? do they think he is likely to last for a while or a short-termer?
1:35 am
>> i don't think that they know. i think for decades there has been a view that qaddafi is a her cumercurial, unstable maybel pong dictator, and how can this guy still be in power? >> 42 years. >> through a series of presidents have asked this question and i think the answer is that he is very nimble, that he has learned how to play tribal politics which is the essence of holding power in libya. with that said, you would have to say that qaddafi's enemies are now so numerous, nobody in the arab world likes him. dr.there is now a substantial, organized opposition that is working with all of the major powers in the west to over throw him, u.s. officials are in contact with a number of members of bad at this's own inner circle trying to pick people away. white house officials say, yes,
1:36 am
we would be interested in trying to organize a coalition government that had reconcilable elements of the qaddafi regime as part of it. now in that process, for years, we have had contacts with the chief of intelligence, for years we have had contacts with their foreign minister, for years we have had contacts with a range of people there. so one source told me that one of our problems is that there are so many would be edge says emissaries claiming to speak for the regime .. and cut a deal they are having to sort of fend them off. uh but there is an effort to meet and talk to as many people as possible, the idea that the best quick outcome is some kind of coalition that's hates qaddafi and basically cuts him out. >> this is going to sound in delicate and not politically proper but with a what they really are hoping for to some extent is some guy is going to put a bullet through his head
1:37 am
and some kind of internal -- >> literally or figurative. >> not necessarily but a palace coup would be nice. >> could he leave? could he flee? >> he could flee south to chad or niger. >> but no realistically he doesn't and in fact there is an interesting debate over whether the president made a mistake by foreclosing qaddafi's escape hatches as early as he did, because the administration has made it pretty clear that not only does he need to get out and can not stay in power, but that the rest of this coalition would like to take him to the world court in the hague. so, in fact, the administration is trying to put some of that toothpaste back in the bottle and officials have said, if he can figure a place to go, venezuela where he has a friend in hugo i can't chez, in zimbabwe, that would be find, i am not sure if he has either of those retirement homes in mind. >> no. he said he is going to go down
1:38 am
with his guns blazing, and sometimes people should be taken seriously when they say that. >> if he does go down, do you all have any sense that the american government have any sense of what a new libyan regime might look like initially? one of the points david made is very important, the administration still holds out to the people at qaddafi's side in tripoli the possibility that some of them could participate in the new government, you could actually have a coalition that has a lot of ex-qaddafi people. actually many of the leaders of the interim council in benghazi are ex-academy at this people. >> if you not a bad at this person you are probably not -- >> you haven't been in politics in libya for the last 40 years. so depending on how it comes out, sure, there are ways of seeing the outlines of a coalition that aren't as murky as they seem to those of us on the outside and of course the state department and the cia
1:39 am
have sent people to benghazi to figure out who the people are on that council and they keep bringing back reports that they say are encouraging. >> just i want to add one thing to what doyle said. there is an odd way in which the protracted process that we have been watching for the last few weeks and is likely to continue for a while longer is actually in the u.s. interests. the problem with this initial anti-qaddafi revolt was that it was really in coet and the administration in the beginning didn't know who these people were and because north africa and libya has been a recruiting ground for al qaeda and extremists groups, there was a concern that they might be prominent in the rebel leadership. so this period has given the u.s. and other key powers a chance to make contact, clandestinely, get to know people, sometimes overtly as in hillary clinton's meeting with
1:40 am
gentleman ja brill, head of the interim committee during her last trip. so getting to know them and then the idea is, create structures that allow them gradually to build something like a normal government, which libya has not had arguably ever, and so, again, that is going to take time and they want time. >> david, i had one, your intelligence sources are far better than mine but i had one tell me there is no question this guy still has mustard gas despite what he says. >> he has scary weapons and scary people and this is a regime that knows how to use terrorism, you can't forget, they were specifically blamed for the lockerbie bombing and they have used terrorists in many ways and they have people and resources and that is in the backs of the minds of all of the people in the white house, and the cia. >> the president has drawn one very bright line in all of. this we have talked about the places that are unclear. one thing that is very clear is
1:41 am
no american boots on the ground. >> okay. that lets us figure out a little better where we are if this turns into a protracted civil war. the administration won't rule out arm shipments to the rebels. they haven't made that decision yet. they are not going to discourage or prevent egypt, for example, from sending armed shipments. >> what is the down side to oil -- to armed shipments to the rebels? why wouldn't that be a no-brainer? >> well, because we have had some experience in afghanistan. >> we have. >> you have to know the people a little better before you send the stuff and you have to train people. you have to have some control over the inventory there are a lot of reasons, a lot of reasons to worry about that. so that is one piece of it. there is another piece of it that is how long does this international coalition stay together. robust military effort from the air we are seeing. over the last couple of days for the first time the united states
1:42 am
deployed a c-130s, close in, propeller driven gun ships that fly very low, very slow, that is close air support. her saying it is not close air support? it looks to me like it is close air support. >> those are scary weapons, they helped turn the tide in afghanistan. you bring those in, the amount of firepower they can direct below, people just scatter, that is what happens. >> so there is a question of will, you know, will turkey stay in this coalition, will the arab states stay in this coalition, at some point, you know, does nato go into a a nippings about how much force that is being taken and there are limits there .. so there are a lot of turning points that are available out there. >> well, the effect on other states in the region to a large extent depends on how this evolves and how quickly and whether qaddafi stays or not. but right now, what is your initial reading? i mean, yemen, bahrain, syria, if you want to talk about a country that fits
1:43 am
the bill of what obama was talking about last night, the threat of a bad leader doing bad things to his people we are not about to go in syria. >> syria is a harder target and a more complicated place, and it is not -- there is a wonderful nasty old cold-blooded phrase that henry kissinger used to explain why you intervene in one place and not another. he said it is not the identity of the victim that is the condition, the it is identity of the victimizer. >> david you spent so much time in the middle east, what is your sense of how this effects -- >> i think the first thing is, if the president is saying we are going to be wary about military interventions in other countries in that region, that is good. this period of american interventionist wars in the muslim world really has to come to an end for our interests and everybody's. the real estate said something that was important last night in explaining why libya, and he said it is because it is between
1:44 am
the two countries that were really the cradles of this amazing arab spring as we call it, this period of popular revolt in the arab world, and it was the fear a bloody crack down between tunisia and he script would have bad repercussions for those two neighboring states. and i think the white house wants to be in a position of encouraging from the side lines this process of change. that's why the president when reading the, one reason the president has not been outspoken in this weeks. he wants to stay in the background and let them write the narrative. he has a deep feeling if we hijack the narrative that's why we are so unpopular. he wants to change that. i was in cairo last week traveling with secretary of defense gates, and we had press round table with a bunch of egyptian journalists and a young woman, very articulate young journalist stood up and said why
1:45 am
is america going to war again in the arab world? why are you creating another iraq next to us? and i think that illustrates how traumatized the arab world has been by the war in iraq, how wary they are of another event like that happening. and i think it is why obama really felt happy last might to be able to say the u.s. military phase of this basically is over. >> and draw a clear line between iraq, you know, he did it quite directly in libya. >> right. especially qaddafi said the bottom line is we have gone down this road before in iraq, regime change took eight years, it cost upwards of a trillion dollars and thousands and thousands of lives and we have learned our lesson and we can't go about this union lat ly that we need to work within the international framework to be able to intervene, prevent humanitarian catastrophes and the massacre that was unfolding. >> let me ask you before we leave this, this has been
1:46 am
fascinating about conservatives in america. there seems to be several different strains, which comes to the fore. >> oh, al, the fascinating thing about this issue is that it is divided both parties. >> this isn't a democrat versus republican or conservative versus liberal issue it is interventionist versus noninterventionist issue. >> some republicans, people like john mccain and lindsey graham have been arguing in favor of intervention in libya for weeks, weeks before president obama did it, but you have also had on the realist side, richard luger the senior republican on the floor of foreign relations. >> no isolationists. >> no isolationists but old-fashioned realist in a sense saying no we don't have a vital interest there, we shouldn't do it. you had hayley barber the governor of mississippi running
1:47 am
for president, it looks, saying .. i don't think we have a vital interest and this is going to cost too much. and of course you also have the libertarian which is a piece of the tea party movement that is not only ron paul and rand paul but some others, whose basic starting point is why are we intervening anywhere and spending money on this? >> well, nobody knows, we are more knowledgeable than we were 20 minutes ago because david ignatius and julianna goldman, and doyle mcmanus, we are much wiser than we were 20 minutes ago. and we will be right back. >> howrld schultz knee is here, the ceo of the starbucks, the company has more than 16,000 stores in 53 countries serving over 50 million people a week, his expanding in india and china and also the growing variety of products in supermarkets and
1:48 am
elsewhere, he returned as ceo in 2008 after starbucks experienced tough times he tells the story of the company's turnaround in a book called onward i am happy to have him here. welcome. >> thank you, charlie. >> so what happened to starbucks? >> in the end of 2007, i intuitivelily smelled something that wasn't exactly right, and it wasn't showing up yet inhe stock price or how well we were doing. i think honestly, growth and success at such a high level covered up our mistakes and growth became a strategy as opposed to a it can tick and we got a little carried away with ourselves and although i wasn't the ceo i was as culpable as anyone else because i was the chairman and i came back honestly because of love, love of the company, my responsianthe last two years have been perhaps the most rewarding of the last 30. >> i hear you explain why it was, but what was it that went wrong? >> what went wrong is that we lost focus on the customer, and
1:49 am
the company in a way became complicit with wall street, and specifically, i think sometimes the stock price and the pe can unfortunately define an enterprise, and that happened to a degree. when starbucks was at its best we were exceeding the expectations of our customers and balancing profitability with a social conscience, tha that kd of got away from us as we were expanding the company at such hyperrates. >> but you take some responsibility with the others. >> i do. i don't think there was anyone specifically to plame but i say very openly in the book and i have said to our people that even though i wasn't the ceo, i was as culpable as anyone else but the issue is hot to blame or look back, the issue now i is te last two years we have completely trance formed the company, record profits, record revenues, expanding overseas and the strength of the brand is really resonating with customers because of something unique, and that is even during the downturn
1:50 am
of the economy i think people recognized that they want to support a company whose values are compatible with their own. >> what are those values? >> well, first of all w we are t a perfect company and we have our own issues but as an example i think you are well aware of this we spent $260 million on health insurance for our people last year at the height of the chat chris milk financial crisis we would not cut that benefit as an example, what we do around the world with coffee farmers, wwither the largest buyer of far trade coffee in the world .. i think at its core trying to achieve the balance between profitability and long-term value for the shareholders and not leaving our people behind and having a set of guidelines in which the humanity of the company is as consistent as the stock price. >> and was there anything about you that missed being at the helm, that missed being there? >> listen, i was not planning or in any way trying to come back
1:51 am
as ceo, i was enjoying my life, however, of course, having helped build the company from the ground up, i was not on any level going to let starbucks go south and so it wasn't that i was relishing coming back, it was a conviction i had that i need to do this, and i am the person to do it. having said that, i didn't plan that when i would come back we would be in the throes of a financial crisis as well as our own self induced mistakes, this was very hard to do, and we had to make some very tough decisions. >> like? >> i closed all of the stores, as you might remember two years ago for retraining for a whole day. of our people. i brought 10,000 store managers to new orleans for a conference to bring everyone together to hear my message about personal responsibility and accountability. we had a closed, close doors and
1:52 am
laypeople off for the first time in our lives this is a tough thing to do, and at the same time have the conviction and determination not to cut the costs that are based on the humanity of the company under such pressure. >> how different will starbucks be in 20-20? >> we still will be at our core a coffee company whose foundation is based on the retail experience. bear in mind that starbucks did not build its brand through traditional marketing but through the experience in our stores. >> we will don't continue to do that, primarily overseas but in addition to that we will be the first retail company certainly in the u.s. and maybe around the world that develops a ubiquitous distribution system of other products and other channels of distribution. >> like what products? >> right now, we reinvented the instant coffee business, no one thought we could do that, the reason that is working in 30,000 points of distribution outside of our stores is because it was successful in our stores and we
1:53 am
were able to draft offer that. but all kinds of food and bench, the reason we just changed the logo is because we don't need starbucks coffee, the words to be on products that don't have coffee in it. but it is well beyond that. we have become the most relevant brand on facebook on twitter, on foursquare because of the capability and the unique understanding of how to emotionally engage with our customers. outside of our stores. and there has been a seismic change in consumer behavior, and those companies that embrace new levels of technology, new ways of communicating to customers in addition to traditional marketing are those companies who are going to win. >> rose: how big is the chinese market and the indian market? >> oh, my. i know we don't have time. >> rose: makes you cry, doesn't it? >> you know we have 800 stores in greater china, 400 on the main lan and we will have thousands but this is not an easy thing to do. and there will be many companies who are rushing to china like
1:54 am
the gold rush who are going to get it wrong. i had an amazing experience with a former president in china. i am in the province where starbucks is getting ready to grow coffee in a partnership with the chinese government, and my colleague, the chinese person who runs starbucks gets an e-mail saying the former real estate wants to meet howard schultz. i see e-mail, it is a joke of some kind. two days later, i am called to his office, and i am nervous, really nervous, who knows what he wants. you know, i have been with president clinton and been with obama, i was nervous. i walk in, i figure at a minimum it is going to be a photo and i am going to be out of there, here is what it is. first off, he says, i am 84 years old, i am bored to tears, i want your life story. i said the short version or the long one? >> he says i want long one. >> and we are chairman moo's office. >> mao's office is where he is and tell me your life story .. and why does he want the story?
1:55 am
>> he is very concerned and interested with how to build true entrepreneurs in china and specifically a values based form of capitalism, and he read my first book, and he had it and he says, tell me your story. and we were there for two hoursm it was amazing. >> it is a great story. >> onward is the book, how starbucks fought for its life without losing its soul. howard schultz, thank you.
1:56 am
>> funding for charlie rose has been provided by the coca-cola company, supporting this program since 2002. and american express, additional funding provided by these funders. and by bloomberg. a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide.
1:57 am
1:58 am
1:59 am

77 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on